DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Office Action Summary
This is the initial office action for application 18/742761 filed 06/13/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Priority
Application 18/742761 is a continuation in part of application 18/394480.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SANTIAGO (USPGPUB 2007/0260102) in view of MAXWELL (USPGPUB 2013/0184505).
Regarding claim 1, SANTIAGO teaches a process to obtain N-paraffins from vegetable oil.
SANTIAGO teaches a product flow with an elevated content of N-paraffins in the C10-C13 range. N-paraffins are free of hetero atoms.
SANTIAGO teaches in paragraphs 13-24 that hydrotreatment comprises multiple principal reactions including hydrodesulfurization and hydrodeoxygenation and hydrocracking. Hydrodesulfurization is used for the removal of undesirable components such as sulfur.
SANTIAGO teaches in paragraphs 38 and 48 hydroconversion of vegetable oils.
MAXWELL teaches a method for production of hydrocarbon products by converting biomass to bio-oil and using bio-oil as a feedstock in a cracking reaction to produce smaller hydrocarbon compounds.
MAXWELL teaches in the abstract that the methods comprise a hydroprocessing reaction to remove sulfur, oxygen, and nitrogen, followed by a cracking reaction.
MAXWELL teaches in paragraphs 121 - 123 that the process may comprises a series of hydroprocessing reactors.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform separate hydrotreatment steps in SANTIAGO in sequence, removing substantially all the heteroatoms along the process given that the product is N-paraffins which comprise no hetero atoms.
The motivation to do so can be found in paragraph 92 of MAXWELL. MAXWELL teaches that by first removing or reducing any one or more of oxygen, nitrogen and/or sulfur, improves the quality of the feedstock in subsequent cracking reactions.
MAXWELL teaches in paragraphs 124-125 that in second stage reactor where hydrocracking occurs, the catalyst present may be NiW or NiMo or CoMo impregnated on a support such as amorphorus silica alumina. (metal selected from Group VIB and Group VIII or mixtures of Group VIB and Group VIII metals on a neutral support)
Regarding claim 3 and 4, MAXWELL teaches in paragraphs 122 and 124-125 a hydrocracking catalyst with NiMo on a support such as amorphous silica alumina.
MAXWELL further teaches in paragraph 122 that to avoid rapid catalyst deactivation, relatively low metal loadings of 0.1- 15% wt is employed.
The same concerns for the hydrocracking catalyst would be present and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a catalyst with NiMO wherein the Ni is from 0.1-5 wt% and the Mo is from 5-15 wt% impregnated on the amorphous silica alumina would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. (0.05-5 wt% Ni and 5-30 wt% Mo)
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 17, SANTIAGO recognizes in paragraphs 41 and 61 and 73-75 that the process produces a product that is fractionated by two fractionators into a C10- stream, a C10-C13 stream and a C13+ stream. The fractionator may be recognized as a separation column. Separation columns are known in the art to separate streams or fractions. The C13+ stream is taught to have standalone value as drilling fluid. C10-C13 stream is taught in the abstract to have value as raw materials for production of detergents.
Hydrocracking is recognized in SANTIAGO and MAXWELL also teaches in paragraph 120 that heaver hydrocarbon products may be collected and cracked into lower olefin hydrocarbon products.
Depending on the desired product, one of ordinary skill in the art would subject the C13+ fraction to linear cracking to produce a greater yield of C10-C13 normal paraffins. The cracked products from linear cracking would be sent to the same fractionators.
Regarding claim 19, SANTIAGO teaches in paragraph 59 that sulfide gas is removed prior to the hydrocarbon product being passed to the two fractionators.
Regarding claim 18, SANTIAGO teaches in paragraph 43 that the vegetable oil may include palm kernel oil.
Regarding claims 5-6, SANTIAGO teaches in paragraph 43 that the vegetable oil may include palm kernel oil. Palm kernel oil includes carbon chains of C16 carbons.
Regarding claim 7, SANTIAGO teach in paragraph 38 hydroconversion of vegetable oil.
Regarding claim 8, SANTIAGO teaches in paragraphs 14-24 that the principal reactions that occur during hydrogenation include hydrocracking. SANTIAGO teaches a process in paragraph 40 in which a mixture with vegetable oil is subjected to hydrocracking, followed by hydrotreatment, and followed by hydrogenation.
The hydrogenation step may be considered an additional conversion step to an intermediate stream that comprises N-paraffins to convert to the C10 – C13 normal paraffin stream.
Regarding claims 9-10, SANTIAGO teaches in paragraph 65 and graph 1 that the product would be basically linear hydrocarbons with the contents of C10-C13 N-paraffins shown as more than 99%.
Regarding claim 11, SANTIAGO teaches in paragraph 64 processing the C10-C13 N-paraffin stream to ensure that the maximum amount of branching is under 2%. SANTIAGO further teaches in paragraph in paragraph 5 that it is known to use molecular screens with adsorbent elements to remove isoparaffins.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to use a known technique that SANTIAGO teaches to ensure that the maximum amount of branching is under 2% by removing isoparaffins.
Regarding claim 12, SANTIAGO teaches in paragraph 41 that by products C1-C5 gases are produced, along with CO2, water, and C13+. SANTIAGO also teaches in paragraph 58 that the yield of C10-C13 paraffins in the process is 70-80%.
The amount of total byproducts would be expected to be the balance or 30-20%. A maximum range of 20-30 would overlap the claimed range of less than 25 wt% methane.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 13, SANTIAGO teaches in paragraph 41 that by products C1-C5 gases are produced, along with CO2, water, and C13+. SANTIAGO also teaches in paragraph 58 that the yield of C10-C13 paraffins in the process is 70-80%.
The amount of total byproducts would be expected to be the balance or 30-20%.
The amount of C1 gases in the byproduct would be expected to be a portion of the 30-20%.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further adjust the process such that production of the C10- stream and by extension methane is minimized.
SANTIAGO teaches in paragraphs 73-75 a motivation to adjust the process such that of the byproducts, C13+ are favored as the C13+ stream may be used as a drilling fluid.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 14, SANTIAGO teaches in the abstract that the C10-C13 N-paraffins may be raw materials for production of detergents such as LAB (linear alkyl benzenes)
Regarding claim 15, SANTIAGO teaches in paragraph 30 that a reduced Ni catalyst may be used in the hydrogenation of vegetable oils with mineral oil. Hydrogenation is taught by SANTIAGO to include hydrocracking.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a catalyst known for hydrogenation of vegetable oils with mineral oil in a hydrogenation process for of vegetable oils with mineral oil.
Regarding claim 16, SANTIAGO teach in paragraph 14 that the principal reactions that occur in the reactor includes hydrodesulfurization and hydrocracking.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim(s) 2 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SANTIAGO (USPGPUB 2007/0260102) in view of MAXWELL (USPGPUB 2013/0184505) as applied to claims 1 and 3-19 above, and further in view of GOSSELINK (USPGPUB 2012/0289752).
The above discussion of SANTIAGO in view of MAXWELL is incorporated herein by reference.
GOSSELINK teaches in paragraphs 26-27 catalytic cracking of a solid biomass material with a co-feed of hydrogen as well as hydrodeoxygenation with a catalyst.
The catalysts used in hydrodeoxygenation are taught in paragraphs 173-178 of GOSSELINK. GOSSELINK teaches that the hydrodeoxygenation catalyst comprises ruthenium, nickel, platinum, and molybdenum. The hydrodeoxygenation catalysts are also taught to comprise a support such as silica-alumina and zirconia. Specific catalyst supports of ZrO2 and Al2O3 are taught.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to add a hydrodeoxygenation catalysts such as Ru supported on ZrO2 being added to the same reactor where both hydrodeoxygenation and hydrocracking occurs.
SANTIAGO teach in paragraph 14 that the principal reactions that occur in a reactor includes deoxygenation and hydrocracking.
MAXWELL further teaches in paragraph 122 that to avoid rapid catalyst deactivation, relatively low metal loadings of 0.1- 15% wt is employed.
The same concerns for the hydrodeoxygenation catalyst would be present and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a catalyst with Ru-ZrO2 wherein the Ru is loaded from 0.1-10 wt%. (0.1 – 10 wt% Ru-ZrO2)
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 20, GOSSELINK teach in paragraph 60 that the process may comprise a cofeed. The cofeed is taught in paragraph 61 to include a mineral oil. The cofeed is taught in paragraph 72-73 to include Fischer-Tropsch derived hydrocarbon streams may be produced from carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The process produces longer chain, usually paraffinic hydrocarbons. The carbon monoxide and hydrogen may be generated from biomass.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the Fischer-Tropsch derived hydrocarbon streams as a cofeed in SANTIAGO. SANTIAGO teaches that the process may be mixed with a mineral hydrocarbon oil.
However, GOSSELNIK recognizes in paragraph 3 that crude mineral oil supply is diminishing. Substituting the Fischer-Tropsch derived hydrocarbon streams that are also usually paraffinic hydrocarbons, either in part or in full, for the mineral oil to the process that SANTIAGO teaches would be obvious as GOSSELNIK recognize them as equivalents for cofeeds.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
FICHTJ et al. (USPGPUB 2014/0163278) teach methods and apparatus for producing normal paraffins and hydrocarbon product streams.
ABAZAJIAN (USPGPUB 2004/0176654) teach production of linear alkyl benzenes and the process to produce them.
SCHEIBEL (USPGPUB 2018/0251411) teach production of linear alkyl benzenes with renewable natural oils.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PREM SINGH can be reached at 5712726381. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MING CHEUNG PO/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771